Arkansas Supreme Court Revives Cases Barred by Statute of Limitations
Arkansas Supreme Court rules legislature can revive civil claims after statutes of limitations expire.
Why it matters: This decision overturns a 180-year-old precedent, potentially opening the floodgates for revived litigation in Arkansas. Legal teams must now reassess strategies for state cases previously considered time-barred.
- Ruling issued November 5, 2026, in H.C. v. Nesmith reverses precedent from 1846.
- Decision allows Arkansas General Assembly to revive claims even after statute of limitations lapses.
- Case involved sexual abuse allegations filed during a temporary revival window.
- Dissent warns of unfairness due to lost evidence and deceased witnesses.
- Majority opinion: statute deadlines do not create property rights but are legislative policy choices.
On November 5, 2026, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in H.C. v. Nesmith that empowers the Arkansas General Assembly to revive civil claims even after the statute of limitations has expired. This decision overturned a precedent dating back to 1846, which deemed such revival unconstitutional for infringing on defendants' vested rights.
The case stemmed from four plaintiffs alleging sexual abuse by Dr. James Darrell Nesmith between 1995 and 2007. Three plaintiffs claim abuse during medical visits, and one alleges abuse at Nesmith’s home and a church camp. Their lawsuit was initially dismissed as untimely by the trial court and affirmed by the Arkansas Court of Appeals in February 2025, citing the longstanding Supreme Court precedent.
The plaintiffs filed during a temporary revival window created by the Justice for Vulnerable Victims of Sex Abuse Act, which allowed previously time-barred claims between February 1, 2024, and January 31, 2026.
Justice Nicholas Bronni, author of the majority opinion, stated: "And we now restore to the General Assembly its constitutional power to decide how long is too long to bring a claim." The ruling emphasized that expiration of the statute of limitations does not confer a property right, but is a policy decision for lawmakers.
Justice Courtney Hudson concurred, noting courts should typically adhere to precedent but made an exception given the delayed reporting common in childhood sexual abuse cases.
Chief Justice Karen Baker and Justice Shawn Womack dissented, expressing concern that overturning nearly two centuries of precedent risks unfairness because of lost evidence and deceased witnesses.
This ruling shifts Arkansas’s litigation landscape significantly, especially for claims related to sexual abuse. Corporations and litigators must prepare for potential revived claims and evolving legal strategies.
By the numbers:
- 180 years — duration of overturned precedent from 1846 to 2026.
- February 1, 2024 to January 31, 2026 — revival window created by Justice for Vulnerable Victims of Sex Abuse Act.
- February 2025 — Arkansas Court of Appeals upheld dismissal before Supreme Court reversal.
Yes, but: Dissenting justices warn reviving old claims could lead to unfairness due to lost evidence and deceased witnesses.
What's next: Litigators and corporate counsel will watch for legislative responses and additional rulings clarifying how broadly the decision applies.